Silister Trench
- Thread Starter
- #51
Why Do We Recommend a 'Siesta'?
First off, I don't under normal circumstances - which will get to later. Second, I think siesta was maybe a cute term to label this practice ump-teen years ago, yet the cuteness does little to describe what it's for, who it's for, and why it's an option? Wouldn't just calling it a "Dark period of Co2 accumulation" or even better "A photosynthetic break, in which lights are shut off to allow respiratory Co2 levels (or other natural means of Co2) to accumulate to a higher level before continuing photosynthesis" been sufficient. Okay, it's not as catchy or as cute, but if any of you have ever mentioned a siesta to a beginner 9/10 times you had to explain something like that anyways, which means the six letters you lazily wrote and their cuteness failed to impart any wisdom and you had to type it out anyways -
Planted Tank 'siesta': An intermit in plant photosynthesis sometime after Co2 levels fall to unfavorable levels created by shutting off available lighting completely to a planted low-tech fish tank in order to allow levels of Co2 to accumulate to a higher level than had previously been available at the end of the first period of photosynthesis. Co2 accumulation in this case is from the respiration of tank inhabitants, respiration of bacteria, natural decay (dirt tanks), but can only be achieved by reducing surface agitation to a very minimal disturbance.
When we 'Siesta' Wrong...
Low-Light/Low-Tech 'siesta': Once agin, this practice is traced back to Diana Walstad and her book "Ecology of the Planted Tank" as far as I can tell, but this over-practice and the likelihood that it is in fact providing you with a better source of Co2 throughout the entire photoperiod can hardly be blamed on her. In some cases such as a Walstad Tank it is an advisable practice that helps fast-growing stem plants have the necessary levels of Co2 to continue photosynthetic production that creates this natural ecosystem, however, the majority of people who practice or recommend this siesta have -
A.) Understood this practice entirely and their tank and plant selection reflect accurately why it is necessary
B.) Never tried a Walstad Tank and assume it's a good practice for low-light tanks
C.) Never read the book, never questioned the siesta's origins
I assume we all live in a world where red means STOP/Incorrect and green means GO/correct... right? A world where on multiple choice tests our brains - whenever in doubt of the true answer - resorted to an unknown formula that claims C.) is likely the correct answer and if that wasn't right B.) had the next highest chance of being right whereas A.) had the lowest chance. Well, that high-school level of experienced guesswork is what my brain falls back on whenever I see someone recommend a siesta to someone else and than either flies away, or they do it because that's the hours in which they are most able to view the tank... LIAR! You practice it because someone else told you the same thing and then they flew away from the thread because (be honest with me) who sits and views a tank for 4 hours, then leaves for 4 hours every day, then comes back to look at the tank for 4 hours. Alright, maybe not ALL of you because some of us have weird schedules and our availability isn't the same - some of us really like to look at the tanks we care for and want to see them whenever we can. It's relaxing, lovely, entertaining, foreign, unfinished, a world our own... the rest of you are still lying... I don't need to know whether you're truthful or not because I have another simple test. Say "yes" to the ones that apply, and please don't say it out loud if you're in a public area because hearing the person next to you in the coffee shop mumble to themselves is awkward and weird - at least that's what the couple at the table to my right told me.
The halt in photosynthesis is to allow respiration from fish and like freshwater creatures, as well as bacteria, to have a chance to breathe and I mean that quite literally. With each breath they exhale that all natural Co2 plants are eager and happy to recycle for us back into that oh-so-sweet and delicious O2 we gasp for when there's not enough in a room, and we unknowingly imprison in our lungs whenever an attractive member of the opposite gender smiles in our direction. This means that any of 4-5 means a siesta in which Co2 is allowed to accumulate is not needed in the slightest since an alternate method is provided, and while 6 may be practical as an idea a tank with very low stocking will likely not generate a significant amount of Co2 that could not be provided sufficiently by our atmosphere. If you answered yes to 1 then you are a elitist if you are a beginner and selected plants that have a low demand for Co2 under low light and won't require this break - good on you! - and if you answered yes to 2 you're lighting isn't intense enough to create a high enough demand for Co2 for it to even matter unless planted in such a way you have an over abundance of fast-growing Co2 hungry stem plants. 3 means you don't understand or care that carbon dioxide exists as a trace gas in Earth's atmosphere at the very low concentration of 0.04% and that if Co2 levels in water are higher than that present in the atmosphere that this surface agitation causes the higher concentration of Co2 in the water to "gas off" through atmospheric equilibrium, loosely meaning that you can't have a higher concentration of Co2 in water that is exchanging gasses than the downward force our o.o4% atmospheric Co2 without the tank trying to exhale that extra Co2 back upward to the atmosphere.
When is a Siesta a good thing or unneeded?
Variables are variable from one tank to another, but generally a siesta period can provide essential Co2 under circumstances. Co2 is no more allergic to water than oxygen is but because it's constantly attempting to reach natural equilibrium and that level is extremely low we can conclude that surface agitation increases the speed at which this happens. In tanks that have a dirt substrate natural decomposition provides a source of Co2 in small amounts. This source of decomposition is actually provided by the pieces of decaying wood commonly found in them if I'm not mistaken. This Co2 along with respired Co2 from stocking and bacteria can potentially create a higher concentration of Co2 than our atmosphere will introduce through equilibrium, so surface agitation in dirt tanks is likely non-beneficial because Co2 levels can reach a much higher concentration without, allowing for faster growth or more Co2 demanding plants in which a siesta is beneficial to heighten levels of Co2.
In cases where something in your tank is depleting these levels of Co2 to a point it bottoms out, then a siesta can be used as a break.
In a lot of cases when plant growth is low, or plants are undemanding in Co2 (even if planted heavily) it's generally not needed, nor recommended.
I never recommend a siesta because I never want to tell someone to plant a low-light tank in which the Co2 demand would outweigh what can be achieved by respiration and surface agitation without breaking the photoperiod, and we do want the surface water agitated to break the protein films and for relative beauty. Choosing the plants that are undemanding means your final aquascape will take much longer to become lush and beautiful, but the problems some have because they've created due to Co2 demand vs natural means is outweighed, either forcing them to Siesta, or likely inevitably break down and liquid dose carbon. Most often I never try to provide a reason behind a problem that creates continuing cost for any of us because fish-keeping is expensive and I think excel and breaks in the tank's light should only be used if you are trying to enhance your aquascape, and not sustain it with the additional Co2 even if the means are natural.
Told you in the first paragraph that I'd get to why I don't recommend a siesta and I remembered. - Sil
First off, I don't under normal circumstances - which will get to later. Second, I think siesta was maybe a cute term to label this practice ump-teen years ago, yet the cuteness does little to describe what it's for, who it's for, and why it's an option? Wouldn't just calling it a "Dark period of Co2 accumulation" or even better "A photosynthetic break, in which lights are shut off to allow respiratory Co2 levels (or other natural means of Co2) to accumulate to a higher level before continuing photosynthesis" been sufficient. Okay, it's not as catchy or as cute, but if any of you have ever mentioned a siesta to a beginner 9/10 times you had to explain something like that anyways, which means the six letters you lazily wrote and their cuteness failed to impart any wisdom and you had to type it out anyways -
Planted Tank 'siesta': An intermit in plant photosynthesis sometime after Co2 levels fall to unfavorable levels created by shutting off available lighting completely to a planted low-tech fish tank in order to allow levels of Co2 to accumulate to a higher level than had previously been available at the end of the first period of photosynthesis. Co2 accumulation in this case is from the respiration of tank inhabitants, respiration of bacteria, natural decay (dirt tanks), but can only be achieved by reducing surface agitation to a very minimal disturbance.
When we 'Siesta' Wrong...
Low-Light/Low-Tech 'siesta': Once agin, this practice is traced back to Diana Walstad and her book "Ecology of the Planted Tank" as far as I can tell, but this over-practice and the likelihood that it is in fact providing you with a better source of Co2 throughout the entire photoperiod can hardly be blamed on her. In some cases such as a Walstad Tank it is an advisable practice that helps fast-growing stem plants have the necessary levels of Co2 to continue photosynthetic production that creates this natural ecosystem, however, the majority of people who practice or recommend this siesta have -
A.) Understood this practice entirely and their tank and plant selection reflect accurately why it is necessary
B.) Never tried a Walstad Tank and assume it's a good practice for low-light tanks
C.) Never read the book, never questioned the siesta's origins
I assume we all live in a world where red means STOP/Incorrect and green means GO/correct... right? A world where on multiple choice tests our brains - whenever in doubt of the true answer - resorted to an unknown formula that claims C.) is likely the correct answer and if that wasn't right B.) had the next highest chance of being right whereas A.) had the lowest chance. Well, that high-school level of experienced guesswork is what my brain falls back on whenever I see someone recommend a siesta to someone else and than either flies away, or they do it because that's the hours in which they are most able to view the tank... LIAR! You practice it because someone else told you the same thing and then they flew away from the thread because (be honest with me) who sits and views a tank for 4 hours, then leaves for 4 hours every day, then comes back to look at the tank for 4 hours. Alright, maybe not ALL of you because some of us have weird schedules and our availability isn't the same - some of us really like to look at the tanks we care for and want to see them whenever we can. It's relaxing, lovely, entertaining, foreign, unfinished, a world our own... the rest of you are still lying... I don't need to know whether you're truthful or not because I have another simple test. Say "yes" to the ones that apply, and please don't say it out loud if you're in a public area because hearing the person next to you in the coffee shop mumble to themselves is awkward and weird - at least that's what the couple at the table to my right told me.
- My plants consist of slow-growing beginner plants such as Java Ferns, Anubias, Moss only; or very few stem plants with low-light
- My lights are effectively low-lighting in terms of PAR... >30 and plant growth is usually very slow even on plants deemed 'FAST'.
- I have a Hang on Back filter, internal canister filter, air stones or anything else that causes disturbance across the surface of water.
- I dose one form of liquid carbon or another - most commonly Flourish Excel
- I have a Co2 Injected tank
- My tank is stocked very low, or no fish at all
The halt in photosynthesis is to allow respiration from fish and like freshwater creatures, as well as bacteria, to have a chance to breathe and I mean that quite literally. With each breath they exhale that all natural Co2 plants are eager and happy to recycle for us back into that oh-so-sweet and delicious O2 we gasp for when there's not enough in a room, and we unknowingly imprison in our lungs whenever an attractive member of the opposite gender smiles in our direction. This means that any of 4-5 means a siesta in which Co2 is allowed to accumulate is not needed in the slightest since an alternate method is provided, and while 6 may be practical as an idea a tank with very low stocking will likely not generate a significant amount of Co2 that could not be provided sufficiently by our atmosphere. If you answered yes to 1 then you are a elitist if you are a beginner and selected plants that have a low demand for Co2 under low light and won't require this break - good on you! - and if you answered yes to 2 you're lighting isn't intense enough to create a high enough demand for Co2 for it to even matter unless planted in such a way you have an over abundance of fast-growing Co2 hungry stem plants. 3 means you don't understand or care that carbon dioxide exists as a trace gas in Earth's atmosphere at the very low concentration of 0.04% and that if Co2 levels in water are higher than that present in the atmosphere that this surface agitation causes the higher concentration of Co2 in the water to "gas off" through atmospheric equilibrium, loosely meaning that you can't have a higher concentration of Co2 in water that is exchanging gasses than the downward force our o.o4% atmospheric Co2 without the tank trying to exhale that extra Co2 back upward to the atmosphere.
When is a Siesta a good thing or unneeded?
Variables are variable from one tank to another, but generally a siesta period can provide essential Co2 under circumstances. Co2 is no more allergic to water than oxygen is but because it's constantly attempting to reach natural equilibrium and that level is extremely low we can conclude that surface agitation increases the speed at which this happens. In tanks that have a dirt substrate natural decomposition provides a source of Co2 in small amounts. This source of decomposition is actually provided by the pieces of decaying wood commonly found in them if I'm not mistaken. This Co2 along with respired Co2 from stocking and bacteria can potentially create a higher concentration of Co2 than our atmosphere will introduce through equilibrium, so surface agitation in dirt tanks is likely non-beneficial because Co2 levels can reach a much higher concentration without, allowing for faster growth or more Co2 demanding plants in which a siesta is beneficial to heighten levels of Co2.
In cases where something in your tank is depleting these levels of Co2 to a point it bottoms out, then a siesta can be used as a break.
In a lot of cases when plant growth is low, or plants are undemanding in Co2 (even if planted heavily) it's generally not needed, nor recommended.
I never recommend a siesta because I never want to tell someone to plant a low-light tank in which the Co2 demand would outweigh what can be achieved by respiration and surface agitation without breaking the photoperiod, and we do want the surface water agitated to break the protein films and for relative beauty. Choosing the plants that are undemanding means your final aquascape will take much longer to become lush and beautiful, but the problems some have because they've created due to Co2 demand vs natural means is outweighed, either forcing them to Siesta, or likely inevitably break down and liquid dose carbon. Most often I never try to provide a reason behind a problem that creates continuing cost for any of us because fish-keeping is expensive and I think excel and breaks in the tank's light should only be used if you are trying to enhance your aquascape, and not sustain it with the additional Co2 even if the means are natural.
Told you in the first paragraph that I'd get to why I don't recommend a siesta and I remembered. - Sil